The above observations are a stunning examples of the current liberal ignorance and downright stupidity re: the history of Islam. This person knows absolutely nothing at all about Islam--the "Israel solution" is likewise typical of liberal lack of a "liberal" education. The single fundamental fact of Islam is that its various sects have not, in any way, evolved since the 7th century. Islamic culture is stuck in a millenium and a half of history, and yes, they continue to act aggressively against all-comers on the globe today as they did from the 7th century on. Does "Hank P" know jack about the middle ages? Does he even know what the "middle ages" is in the middle of? Read volume of "world history," Hank. Inform yourself. If...

... and call it "academic expertise." In the humanities and social sciences what passes often for researched "scholarship" is simply insulting someone. So the liberal media call in people with Phuds to do some PC name-calling. NB: lack of even any pretense to say something analytical that would at least give a semblance intellectual respectability. But no: "People who don't agree with with me don't agree with me because they are stupid." That's NPR "Chatter-box radio" for you.

By refusing to make public the data supposedly supporting the thesis of human-produced global climate change, the scientists on this subject committed the unforgiveable sin. Whatever they say, whatever they claim--even if intrinsically it is valid--is trash without the published data that other scientists can use to repeat that same experiments/calculations. Now that that this data has been publicly announced as dumped and gone, this publication will never happen. Whatever anyone says after this point, the whole thesis is DOA. Finis!

Surprised that no one on this thread mentioned the Alabama-Huntsville murderer, Prof. Amy Bishop, Harvard-graduate and gunslinger who recently killed 3 colleagues at a department meeting and wounded 3 more. Does she prove guns should be more controlled, or not?

Any takers?

"phil Location: AZ
Reply # 33
Date: Nov 18, 2009 - 6:47 PM EST
And now...
Untenable as the resident has declared KSM guilt and prophesied a conviction. No defense team worth its salt will let that prejudice go unchallenged and KSM will get the very best. A criminal trial also will raise questions of fourth and fifth amendment violations"

Phil's point is on the mark and very scary: the president of the United States declares publicly that these people are guilty, while at the same time putting them on trial in a civilian court where the governing principle must be that the accused are innocent until proven guilty.

This whole business gets more internally-contradictory every time the administration opens its...

Obama is seriously tone-deaf if he believes that anyone with anything in their heads takes him seriously. Mind you, there are a lot of people out there who correspond to his apparent notion that the citizens of this country are ignorant and stupid. After all, they voted for him.

However, as a "community organizer," Obama was in the business of assuming that communities that haven't the mental wherewithal to "organize" themselves need someone like him to wipe their noses.

In any case, there is nothing in the moves made by either the White House with its prodigiously bizarre team of "czars," or the democratic majority in congress who want to sneak the health care bill through Congress by by-passing the Republican...

There are two areas in which free speech protections operate in universities: (1) constitutional; (2) academic freedom. The first is protected speech in general, in the interest of political freedom in a democracy. The second is an academic-specific principle that requires freedom of research and teaching in the interest of the notion that freedom in both activities is more valuable to the advancement of learning than is the value of avoiding offending somebody.

These two kinds of freedom-of-speech guarantees are these days royally confused each with the other. This is particularly true by reason of the fact that in the humanities and to some extent in the social sciences (much less so in the hard sciences) there has been a...

Yale UP belongs to an organization called the American Association of University Presses, which sponsored the publication of a book in 1995 called "A Guide to Bias-Free Writing," a handbook that lists the various political groups defined by inter alia race and gender that member academic presses should not allow to be traduced by the writers of manuscripts they publish.

That this is a "guide" to violations of academic freedom is evident both on its face and substantively. That Yale should refuse to publish the famous cartoons treating Mohammed as someone properly the subject of derisory cartoons is already predicted by its membership in this organization.

Then there's the dhimmitude factor: fear of doing something that...

. . . because if he hadn't mounted a war against terrorists, they would be nice to us. That is the logic of the liberals governing this country now. We need to recall some ancient history, and to recognized that controlling people by terrorizing them is as old as Islam itself. My own conviction is that liberals in this country are already "dhimmi," i.e., the arabic word for non-muslims who have been terrified into obedience by Islamic rule. Obama is scared stiff, as are the rest of the liberals in this country, and this fact needs to be plastered all over this country: "The democratic party is the party of cowards and traitors, and is therefore on the side of the enemies of this country."

I think the time for Saunders-like...

There is a fundamental difference b/t accused criminals, who are suspected of acts done in the past, and people trying to attack a country (whether part of a "legitimate" military or not), which attacks are justifiably expected in the future. Criminals are granted presumption of innocence precisely because what a trial "tries," i.e., tests for, is who did an act in the past.

However, wars are always waged in the future, which is why the Geneva treaties require declarations of war. What the latter "declare" among other things is that the members of a military of a country that has declared war by its enemies precisely expected in the future to be "guilty" of attempts to inflict harm--IOW, they are treated not according to the...